Massie's ideology was the Constitution, you know, actually honoring the oath he took? If you look it up, you will see that he pretty much led all elected reps in that area. Chip Roy is right up there, too.
Now that Massie is gone, that is one less true Constitutional-centric elected rep in office.
MAGA is fine, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many "patriots" today cannot see that distinction.
The loyalty charge first. A constitutionalist's oath is to the Constitution, not to any man, including a President I voted for thrice. When he acts inside his constitutional authority, he has my support. When he steps outside it, saying so is not siding with the enemy. It is the oath doing exactly what it was built to do. The Founders bound good leaders too, because bend the rules for our cause is how every bad leader later justifies himself.
The debt vote. You are right that Massie cast the deciding Rules Committee vote and voted for passage, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. The Constitution does not tell a member how to vote on a debt ceiling bill. That is a policy judgment. You are free to call it a bad one. It is not a constitutional violation. So it tells me you disliked his vote. It tells me nothing about his fidelity to the Constitution, which is what I actually claimed. And on Chip Roy, you make my point. He and Massie split on that bill. That is two independent men voting their own judgment.
Last, the one way principle. Look at who actually bends. Putting MAGA above the Constitution means cheering its limits when they restrain the other side, then calling those same limits a betrayal the moment they bind ours. That works one way. Mine binds whoever holds power. That is the whole point of having a Constitution.
Hey Bubble_burst and 1234567whatevs, DO you guys ever notice when you counter the MassHole idiot supporters like 427windsorman with facts that they never have a response? I sure notice and find it funny! MASSIE had his very own juice handler but the Massholes never remember that. "bUt mUh Constitutionalist..."
Ever notice how the ignorant immediately attack anyone that doesn't agree with their opinions? I do not recall saying anything about being a Massie acolyte. I simply stated he was consistently for the Constitution. You know, that document that grants the limited power to government? The document that prohibits government from taking any action not specifically delegated. By your screen name, you took the same oath I did. Perhaps you just never understood the significance of what you took that oath for.
You use "Constitutionalist" as though it were an insult. That is typical of those who are ignorant in regards to the purpose and importance of the Constitution.
Have you ever noticed those that can not argue on facts counter with insults, such as what you just did. I understand every oath I have ever taken! Massie was indeed NOT consistently for the Constitution, the very document I have on my desk and read every week! You are weak, your counter argument is as weak as you are. You argued Massie was a Constitutionalist, he was NOT. I never questioned what you believe in 100% so. Fact check your argument and come back with something valid chief.
You led with "you're weak" and "fact check yourself," so let me put an actual standard on the table instead of trading insults.
My claim was never that Massie voted the way I wanted on every bill. No member does. My claim is that he is among the most consistent constitutional voters in the House, and that is metric that is actually measurable.
The groups built to measure fidelity to limited and enumerated government put him at the top. The Republican Liberty Caucus's most recent Liberty Score ranked Massie as the only Republican in the entire House to score 100 or higher. The Club for Growth and Conservative Review run their own scorecards on the same kind of standard, and he rates at or near the top of those as well. That is his recorded voting record measured against constitutional principle, not my opinion.
So here is the fact check, returned. The claim is measurable and the metrics back it. If you have a standard that shows otherwise, name it and post the score. "He wasn't" is not a measure.
And to keep us honest on terms, when I say constitutional I mean voting to keep government inside its delegated powers. If you grade by a broader view of federal authority, you'll score those same votes differently, and then we are arguing definitions, not Massie.
Massie's ideology was the Constitution, you know, actually honoring the oath he took? If you look it up, you will see that he pretty much led all elected reps in that area. Chip Roy is right up there, too.
Now that Massie is gone, that is one less true Constitutional-centric elected rep in office.
MAGA is fine, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Unfortunately, too many "patriots" today cannot see that distinction.
Nothing constitutional about, say, opposing Tariffs, just to name one example.
Never said he was perfect, but compared to the vast majority in office, he was one of the good ones.
Judge the people by their actions not their colourful words.
On that, we agree.
You packed a lot in, so in order.
The loyalty charge first. A constitutionalist's oath is to the Constitution, not to any man, including a President I voted for thrice. When he acts inside his constitutional authority, he has my support. When he steps outside it, saying so is not siding with the enemy. It is the oath doing exactly what it was built to do. The Founders bound good leaders too, because bend the rules for our cause is how every bad leader later justifies himself.
The debt vote. You are right that Massie cast the deciding Rules Committee vote and voted for passage, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. The Constitution does not tell a member how to vote on a debt ceiling bill. That is a policy judgment. You are free to call it a bad one. It is not a constitutional violation. So it tells me you disliked his vote. It tells me nothing about his fidelity to the Constitution, which is what I actually claimed. And on Chip Roy, you make my point. He and Massie split on that bill. That is two independent men voting their own judgment.
Last, the one way principle. Look at who actually bends. Putting MAGA above the Constitution means cheering its limits when they restrain the other side, then calling those same limits a betrayal the moment they bind ours. That works one way. Mine binds whoever holds power. That is the whole point of having a Constitution.
Hey Bubble_burst and 1234567whatevs, DO you guys ever notice when you counter the MassHole idiot supporters like 427windsorman with facts that they never have a response? I sure notice and find it funny! MASSIE had his very own juice handler but the Massholes never remember that. "bUt mUh Constitutionalist..."
Ever notice how the ignorant immediately attack anyone that doesn't agree with their opinions? I do not recall saying anything about being a Massie acolyte. I simply stated he was consistently for the Constitution. You know, that document that grants the limited power to government? The document that prohibits government from taking any action not specifically delegated. By your screen name, you took the same oath I did. Perhaps you just never understood the significance of what you took that oath for.
You use "Constitutionalist" as though it were an insult. That is typical of those who are ignorant in regards to the purpose and importance of the Constitution.
Yes, I AM a Constitutionalist. 100% so.
Have you ever noticed those that can not argue on facts counter with insults, such as what you just did. I understand every oath I have ever taken! Massie was indeed NOT consistently for the Constitution, the very document I have on my desk and read every week! You are weak, your counter argument is as weak as you are. You argued Massie was a Constitutionalist, he was NOT. I never questioned what you believe in 100% so. Fact check your argument and come back with something valid chief.
You led with "you're weak" and "fact check yourself," so let me put an actual standard on the table instead of trading insults.
My claim was never that Massie voted the way I wanted on every bill. No member does. My claim is that he is among the most consistent constitutional voters in the House, and that is metric that is actually measurable.
The groups built to measure fidelity to limited and enumerated government put him at the top. The Republican Liberty Caucus's most recent Liberty Score ranked Massie as the only Republican in the entire House to score 100 or higher. The Club for Growth and Conservative Review run their own scorecards on the same kind of standard, and he rates at or near the top of those as well. That is his recorded voting record measured against constitutional principle, not my opinion.
So here is the fact check, returned. The claim is measurable and the metrics back it. If you have a standard that shows otherwise, name it and post the score. "He wasn't" is not a measure.
And to keep us honest on terms, when I say constitutional I mean voting to keep government inside its delegated powers. If you grade by a broader view of federal authority, you'll score those same votes differently, and then we are arguing definitions, not Massie.